http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20415689

Is there any 'legitimate' reason for voting against this?

Yes, because they have a right to if they want to. There's this thing called 'democracy' you see. Sometimes the results go against you but they are by definition never wrong.
Although in fact they didn't vote against it, they voted in favour of it. 'Yes' had a majority, just not the majority required under the rules to proceed. And if you have rules, you should stick to them, not chuck them out when and if it seems convenient to do so.

Jon

I'm talking about an actual good reason for not 'modernising', or whatever way you wanna phrase it. It's still their choice, I'm just asking that question.

There are times in life where the rights of groups and individuals trump democracy.

This just shows the Church of England isn't fit for the 21st Century.

That applies to pretty much every religion.

Yes, like Soviet Russia and 'year zero' Cambodia.

The old cliche 'I despise what you say but I would defend to the death your right to say it' still applies. Democracy is one of the founding principles of the society we live in and its one of the things we as a society seem keen to always tell everyone else is A Very Good Thing. We can't just bin it when it gets a bit inconvenient. Not allowing women to be.. well anything they want to be is wrong but just chucking out the democratic principle when it bites us in the arse is more wrong.

It reminds me a bit of the 'terrorist/freedom fighter' analogy. A leader who ignores a democratic vote we think is wrong is an Idealist Doing The Right Thing. A leader who ignore a democratic vote we this is right is a dictator who we would happily see hanging from a lampost.

You can't have your cake and eat it. There will a chance for the synod to vote on this issue again sooner or later and the thing to do is, in the meantime, campaign to convince enough people so the vote passes. That's the right thing to do, not just ignore people's wishes because we don't agree with them. Personally I happen to the think the '2/3 majority required to pass' is also a recipe for continuing the status quo - really, how often are you going to be able to convince 2/3 of each of three groups of people to vote for anything - but again, it's part of the rules and if you think it's wrong you campaign to get it changed, you don't just ignore it.

I'll post more detail later but... yes, there is.

The New Testament says very little about church hierarchy and where it does mention it, it's against it. So, if you're either a Catholic or a conservative Evangelical, in which case you have to be convinced by scripture, you cannot be sympathetic to this reform. This is a perfectly honourable position for someone to take and any Measure bringing in reform has to take account of this.

It's a position I disagree with - I'm pro-women bishops - but it's for the reason above that, when it came up at Deanery Synod, I voted against this measure.

Double post

Well they should have looked at their rules first then as I was under the (clearly mistaken) idea that in a democracy when the majority of people vote in favour it goes ahead.

Quite a few democracies have a high threshold (2/3rds or 75%) where there is a change to the constitution being voted on

And the CofE isn't subject to employment laws because?

Been wondering about that myself

I suppose it depends if Bishopry is considered 'a job' of itself, doesn't it? I don't think it's something you apply for, for example. if your job is 'being a priest' then whether you're a bishop or a cardinal or whatever isn't the job. Given the different duties involved I personally do see the latter as 'management roles' and therefore would be interested to see if employment law could be made to stick but not everything anyone does 9-5 is 'employment' in the legal sense of the word.

It is

In which case they should sue the bishops for the discrimination.